Sandra-

How is it obtuse to ask why people in New Hampshire get a bigger say than people in Texas and California?

You say that "There IS a reason, and that is so that the smaller states don't get overwhelmed in the Senate like they inevitably will/do in the House. It seems pretty obvious."

So it's wrong that "smaller states" get less of a voice, but it's OK that "really, really big cities" like NYC get less of a voice? Why? I'm sorry if I'm missing something here, but why is that "obvious"? Why is it so important that a few hundred thousand people in Maine have a "say", but unimportant that a few million in Los Angeles do?

I live in Massachusetts- why do I have a bigger say in the Senate than someone in California? Why do I have less of a say in the Senate than someone from Wyoming?

The big question that you're missing is why do states matter? It made a difference back in the slave vs. free days, but now, when states are basically administrative subdivisions, why do some states get a bigger per capita voice than others?

"My point is that there's no reason for Vermont or Idaho to have the same number of Senators as California..."

That may have been your point, but it's a particularly obtuse one.

There IS a reason, and that is so that the smaller states don't get overwhelmed in the Senate like they inevitably will/do in the House. It seems pretty obvious.

The Democrats should not count on Florida. Gore's mis attention to it in 2000 was a disaster and had he used the same time and money in New Hampshire or Tennessee and not had Lieberman on the ticket he would have won the election. if he wanted to, but it seems he didn't want to win because he had a list of ways to lose starting with the selection of Lieberman and counting of Florida.

Now is the time to start a reform the democrats movement - here in Florida. The Democrats here are of the "old school" i.e. Koch, Liberman, Miller etc. They are not the moveon.org type, but have allowed their party to be hi jackd by them. Let the extreme left have thir own party and stand on their own feet and values, be it communists, or liberal or whatever.

GIVE US OUR PARTY BACK

the author wrote..."Geller has prepared yet another lawsuit accusing party leaders in the four approved early voting states of conspiracy and tortuous interference for forcing the candidates not to campaign in Florida."

The proper word is Tortious, not tortuous. They are committing a tort, not torturing the voters (well, maybe they are :-))

If the Dems truly didn't want this outcome, all they had to do was RESIST the bill (even knowing that they couldn't stop it) and they would have fulfilled the "rules" of the DNC...

So basically I am being disenfranchised because my state legislators weren't smart enough to act like characters in a bodice-ripper romance. Can't the DNC just send them to a Catholic high school or something?

Sandra- thanks, but I'm familiar with how the House and Senate are selected. My point is that there's no reason for Vermont or Idaho to have the same number of Senators as California, any more than there is for New Hampshire to have its primary first.

The idea that "small states" somehow need an equal voice with much larger states is just a holdover from the days when the slave states needed to prevent the more populous free states from abolishing slavery, nothing more, nothing less.

And even if you don't accept that explanation, what is it about a "small state" that entitles it to special treatment? Why do a couple hundred thousand folks in Maine have a say in the Senate when 8 million in New York City have to share their two Senators with the rest of New York State. Why do we allow accidents of history to determine representation rather than actual population?

The Supreme Court long ago decided that the one man one vote principle makes it unconstitutional for states to apportion their legislators by anything other than population. The same should apply to the Senate- that the Constitution provides otherwise is a historical fact, it's not a reason to continue an undemocratic practice..

Nobody is paying attention to the story the other day that the GOP is also punishing Florida Republicans for the early primary. The sanctions don't appear to be as severe, but the principle is exactly the same -- whether states get to practice democracy their way in the absence of a federal scheme, or must bend their knees to party edicts. So it's time to deal with the general principle and stop playing this story as if it were just a Democratic soap opera.

The issue is mixed with another, whether we need presidential election campaigns that are now two years long. Because of the guaranteed tenure of the office, we need more than the six weeks would-be British prime ministers get, but we really don't need more than the year we have had in the second half of the 20th century. A federally mandated national primary in June leaves plenty of time for a thorough post-nomination campaign, and it solves the problems of states jockeying for primacy.

It may take a constitutional amendment, but it would be worth it.

Then if we could only get a new presidential election upon a vote of no confidence in the Congress, we'd be almost civilized.

"The party rules are not fiats handed down from the mountain. They are the result of democratic decision making of the party, in which the Florida Democrats could and did take duly part. They just didn't like the result."

The policies of the US government are not fiats handed down from the mountain. They are the results of the democratic decision making of the country, in which Salon readers could and did take duly part. They just don't like the result.